Document Management (DMS)
EASY Archive
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by EASY SOFTWARE AG · easy-software.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
EASY Archive at a glance
- Vendor
- EASY SOFTWARE AG
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates EASY Archive 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. easy archive, EASY SOFTWARE AG's archiving and document-management product, is strongest at intake: capture and indexing scores cluster at 8 for automatic capture and classification of incoming accounting documents, extraction of vendor, date, amount and purchase-order reference, XRechnung and ZUGFeRD validated against mandatory fields, tax logic and duplicates, and paper, emailed-PDF and Exchange Online intake. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
easy archive, EASY SOFTWARE AG's archiving and document-management product, is strongest at intake: capture and indexing scores cluster at 8 for automatic capture and classification of incoming accounting documents, extraction of vendor, date, amount and purchase-order reference, XRechnung and ZUGFeRD validated against mandatory fields, tax logic and duplicates, and paper, emailed-PDF and Exchange Online intake. Document workflows follow at 7-8 — rule-based approvals without development, escalation and substitution handling, mobile approval via Fiori, and native handover to SAP FI-AP and MM with no middleware. Versioning and permissions and search and portability sit at 4: no public information on version history with restore, check-in and check-out, or logs of reads and exports, and migration is documented in, not out. Audit-proof archiving lands at 5-6, its certification claimed but unnamed. The genuine split is sovereignty at 2-4 over the same facts: cloud stated as primarily in Germany with optional Switzerland or USA regions and on-premises available, but no public information on subprocessors, on where AI processing runs, or on the contracting entity's jurisdiction. No public prices appear on the captured pages.
Speaks for it
- Automatic capture and classification of incoming invoices, credit notes and advance payments, with vendor, date, amount and purchase-order reference extracted
- XRechnung and ZUGFeRD processed as structured XML and validated against mandatory fields, tax logic, duplicate documents and tolerances
- Rule-based approvals requiring no development effort, with escalation management, substitution workflows and mobile approval via Fiori apps
- Native SAP S/4HANA integration covering FI-AP and MM without middleware, certified for current SAP versions
- Retention through SAP ILM with rule-based locking and deletion aligned to GDPR, and migration writes a log relevant for auditors
Held against it
- No public information on version history with restore, check-in and check-out, or an audit trail covering reads, exports and deletions
- Audit-proof archiving is described as certified without a named certificate, auditor's report, WORM storage, legal hold or Z1–Z3 tax-audit export publicly documented
- No public information on bulk export of documents with metadata and versions, or on a post-termination retrieval window
- No public information on the subprocessor list, on where AI processing of document content runs, or on published certifications, with the USA offered as an optional region without a stated safeguard
- No public information on a DATEV connector, webhooks, or a public API reference with a sandbox
Best for
- You run SAP S/4HANA and want invoice capture and approvals that hand over natively to FI-AP and MM without middleware
- You are preparing for the 2028 e-invoicing deadline and need XRechnung and ZUGFeRD intake validated against mandatory fields, tax logic and duplicates
- You need retention periods managed through SAP ILM with rule-based locking and deletion for an SAP-centric archive
- You require on-premises or private-cloud deployment rather than a public cloud
Avoid if
- You must see documented version history with restore, check-in and check-out, and logs of reads, exports and deletions before you can commit
- Your auditor or tax advisor will demand a named certificate behind the audit-proof claim and a Z1–Z3 tax-audit export
- Your exit plan depends on bulk export of documents with their metadata and audit trail when the contract ends
- Your data-protection review needs a published subprocessor list and a stated location for AI processing of document content
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Capture, OCR & indexing | 4 of 5 |
| Versioning, permissions & audit trail | 2 of 5 |
| Audit-proof archiving & retention | 2.5 of 5 |
| Document workflows & integrations | 4 of 5 |
| Search, retrieval & exit | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
Capture, OCR & indexing
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How documents get in and become findable: scanning and email intake, OCR, classification and metadata extraction, and whether incoming e-invoices (XRechnung, ZUGFeRD) are read as structured data rather than as pictures.
0 — Manual upload only; no OCR, no metadata beyond file name and folder.
3 — Upload, drag-and-drop and scan import with OCR mentioned, but indexing is manual and no word on email intake or e-invoice formats.
5 — Scanner, email and folder intake, full-text OCR, document types with metadata fields, and automatic extraction of common fields (date, sender, amount) documented.
8 — AI- or rule-based classification and field extraction with confidence and a validation step, XRechnung and ZUGFeRD read as structured data, mailbox and Microsoft 365 intake, and duplicate detection documented.
10 — Capture is engineered and shown: classification and extraction trainable per document type, validation queues, e-invoice validation against the standard, intake channels listed with their limits, and where AI processing runs (location, model provider) stated.
The GoBD Auditor
Capture is documented with teeth: accounting documents are automatically captured and classified with vendor, date, amount and purchase-order reference extracted, XML e-invoices are validated from receipt onward with duplicate checks, and intake via paper, email PDF, XRechnung and ZUGFeRD is spelled out against the 2028 deadline. A stated extraction accuracy above 95% stands in for confidence reporting, but we found no public information on where the AI processing runs or on limits of the individual intake channels. 4 5 8
The Records Manager
Automatic capture and classification of incoming invoices, credit notes and advance payments with extraction of vendor, date, amount and PO reference, duplicate detection, and XRechnung/ZUGFeRD processed from receipt through validation with checks on mandatory fields and tax logic — that is intake done properly. What keeps it short of the top anchor is that the captured pages do not state where the AI processing runs, nor whether classification is trainable per document type. 4 5 8
The IT Integrator
The invoice product captures and classifies accounting documents via intelligent OCR, extracting vendor, date, amount and purchase-order reference, and reads XRechnung and ZUGFeRD as structured data validated against mandatory fields, tax logic, duplicates and tolerances, with exceptions landing in a Fiori invoice cockpit; intake channels (paper, email PDF, e-invoice) are listed outright. What keeps it off the top: I found no public information on where the AI extraction runs, on trainable classification per document type, or on confidence values behind the advertised accuracy. 4 5 8
The Mittelstand Owner
Intake is documented for paper, PDF by email and XRechnung/ZUGFeRD, incoming accounting documents are automatically captured and classified with OCR extracting vendor, date, amount and purchase-order reference, and the e-invoice validation covers mandatory fields, tax logic, tolerances and duplicate detection. We found no public information on where the AI indexing runs or whether extraction is trainable per document type. 4 8 5
The Data Protection Officer
Automatic capture and classification of incoming invoices, credit notes and advance payments with extraction of vendor, date, amount and purchase-order reference is documented, XML e-invoices are processed from receipt to validation with checks on mandatory fields, tax logic and duplicates, and intake covers paper, e-mailed PDF and XRechnung/ZUGFeRD. I stay below the top level because the pages state a vendor accuracy figure rather than per-document confidence with a validation queue, and I found no public information on where AI processing runs or which provider reads the document content — for personnel files and health certificates that is exactly the disclosure I look for. 4 5 8
The Skeptic
Incoming invoices, credit notes and advance payments are automatically captured and classified with vendor, date, amount and PO reference extracted, XRechnung and ZUGFeRD arrive as structured XML and are validated against mandatory fields, tax logic and duplicate documents, and paper, email-PDF and Exchange Online intake are all named. What holds it below the top is that the pages offer an accuracy claim of more than 95 percent in place of a documented validation queue with confidence handling, and we found no public information on where the AI processing runs or which model provider reads the documents. 4 5 8 1
Versioning, permissions & audit trail
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who may see and change which document, what happened to it, and whether earlier states can be recovered: version history, check-in and check-out, role- and attribute-based rights, and an audit trail of reads and changes.
0 — Files overwrite each other; rights only at folder level or not described; no log of who did what.
3 — Version history and folder permissions exist, but no check-out, no record-level rights and no documented audit log.
5 — Version history with restore, check-in and check-out, roles and groups with document-type or record-level rights, and an audit log of changes documented.
8 — Metadata-driven permissions (by department, client or confidentiality), audit trail covering reads, exports and deletions, single sign-on and directory sync (Entra ID, LDAP) documented, and administrators' own actions logged.
10 — Access is provable: the audit trail is tamper-evident and exportable, permission changes are themselves versioned, field-level rights and need-to-know access for HR or legal records documented, and the log retention period stated.
The GoBD Auditor
Granular role-based rights with single sign-on via OpenID Connect, an audit trail covering the invoice processing steps, and traceability of the archive itself are documented. We found no public information on version history, restore, check-in and check-out, or a log of reads and exports, and nothing on administrators' own actions being logged, so recovery of earlier document states stays unevidenced. 5 6 8
The Records Manager
Single sign-on via OpenID Connect with Entra ID or Google Workspace, a granular role-based access model, and a complete audit trail of invoice processing steps are documented. But I found no public information on version history with restore, check-in and check-out, or an audit trail covering reads, exports and deletions — the half of this criterion that decides whether a 2019 contract can be reconstructed. 5 8
The IT Integrator
Single sign-on via OpenID Connect with Microsoft Entra ID and a granular role-based access model are documented, and invoice processing carries a complete audit trail, with traceability named as a pillar of the archive. I found no public information on version history with restore, check-in and check-out, or on an audit log covering reads, exports and deletions — that silence leaves half of what I need before wiring permissions into a customer directory. 5 6 8
The Mittelstand Owner
Single sign-on via OpenID Connect with Entra ID, a granular role-based access model and an audit trail of the processing steps are documented, which covers who may see what. We found no public information on version history with restore, check-in and check-out, or on how far the audit trail reaches into reads, exports and deletions. 5 8 6
The Data Protection Officer
Single sign-on via OpenID Connect together with a granular role-based access model is documented, and the invoice process archives documents with a complete audit trail of processing steps. I found no public information on version history with restore, check-in and check-out, metadata-driven permissions for HR or legal records, or an audit trail covering reads, exports and deletions, so accountability beyond the processing steps is unevidenced. 5 6 8
The Skeptic
Single sign-on via Entra ID with a granular role-based access model is documented, and the invoice path claims a complete audit trail of processing steps — but we found no public information on version history with restore, on check-in and check-out, or on whether reads, exports and administrator actions are logged. For a vendor trading on audit-proof archiving, the captured pages are strikingly quiet about who changed which document and whether an earlier state can be recovered. 5 6 8
Audit-proof archiving & retention
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
GoBD-compliant, revisionssicher archiving: immutability of archived documents, retention schedules and deletion, tax-audit data access, and the independent evidence behind the claim — scored on what is certified and documented, not on the word "GoBD-konform".
0 — No statement on archiving, retention or GoBD.
3 — "GoBD-konform" or "revisionssicher" claimed with no certificate, no description of how immutability is achieved and no retention settings documented.
5 — Archived documents documented as unchangeable, retention periods configurable per document type, deletion after expiry, and a sample Verfahrensdokumentation or GoBD guidance offered.
8 — An auditor's report (IDW PS 880 or comparable) published or named with its scope and date, WORM or equivalent storage described, legal hold, GDPR deletion reconciled with retention duties, and Z1–Z3 tax-audit export documented.
10 — Archiving is evidenced end to end: current Testat with scope covering the cloud and on-premises editions as sold, retention and deletion logged and reportable, long-term formats (PDF/A) enforced, and a documented procedure for the tax audit and for moving the archive without breaking its integrity.
The GoBD Auditor
Immutability, traceability and availability are described, retention and rule-based locking and deletion run through SAP ILM reconciled with GDPR, and the migration produces a log expressly meant for auditors — more than a bare revisionssicher claim on a homepage. Still, the certificate behind "certified audit-proof archiving" is neither named nor dated with its scope, and we found no public information on a sample Verfahrensdokumentation or on a Z1–Z3 tax-audit export. 5 6 8
The Records Manager
Immutability, traceability and availability are named, retention periods run through SAP ILM with rule-based locking and deletion aligned to GDPR, and migration logs relevant to auditors are described. The certification is claimed but not identified, and we found no public information on an auditor's report with its scope and date, on WORM or equivalent storage, on legal hold, or on a Z1–Z3 tax-audit export. 5 6 8
The IT Integrator
Audit-proof archiving is described as certified with immutability, traceability and availability, retention runs through SAP ILM with rule-based locking and deletion aligned to GDPR, and migrations produce logs relevant for auditors. I found no public information on a published auditor's report, WORM storage, legal hold, a Verfahrensdokumentation sample or Z1–Z3 tax-audit export, so the certification rests on the vendor's own statement rather than independent evidence. 5 6 8
The Mittelstand Owner
Immutability, traceability and availability are documented, retention and deletion run through SAP ILM rules reconciled with GDPR, and the migration writes a log meant for auditors. The archiving is called certified without a named certificate, scope or date, and we found no public information on an auditor's report, WORM storage, legal hold or a Z1–Z3 tax-audit export. 5 6 8
The Data Protection Officer
Immutability and traceability of the archive are described, retention periods with rule-based locking and deletion are governed through SAP ILM in line with GDPR and internal guidelines, and migration produces a log relevant for auditors. The claim of certified audit-proof archiving appears as a statement; I found no public information naming an auditor's report such as an IDW PS 880 Testat with its scope and date, and nothing on legal hold or the Z1–Z3 tax-audit export. 5 6 8
The Skeptic
Immutability, traceability, retention policies and rule-based locking and deletion through SAP ILM are described, invoices are archived with an audit trail of the processing steps, and migration produces a log relevant for auditors — more substance than a bare 'revisionssicher' on a homepage. But the pages say 'certified audit-proof archiving' without naming who certified it, and we found no public information on an auditor's report, WORM storage, legal hold, a sample Verfahrensdokumentation, or tax-audit data export. 5 6 8
Document workflows & integrations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What happens to a document after it arrives: approval and invoice workflows, tasks and deadlines, and the connectors that tie the DMS to ERP, accounting, DATEV, Microsoft 365 and the rest of the stack.
0 — No workflows; documents are stored and nothing else.
3 — A fixed approval or sharing step and a handful of named integrations, with no workflow designer and no API documentation.
5 — A workflow designer for approvals and invoice processing, tasks with deadlines and substitutes, Microsoft 365 or Outlook integration, and a documented REST API.
8 — Graphical workflow modelling without code, invoice workflow with ERP or DATEV handover documented, connectors for named ERP systems (SAP, Microsoft Dynamics, DATEV) with their scope, webhooks or events, and e-signature integration.
10 — Workflows are a platform: versioned workflow definitions, process reporting with throughput times, a public API reference with rate limits and a sandbox, a partner marketplace of integrations with stated maintainers, and workflow history kept in the audit trail.
The GoBD Auditor
Invoice processing is wired natively into SAP FI-AP and MM without middleware, with rule-based approvals needing no development effort, escalation management, dual control, substitutes, mobile approval via Fiori apps and reporting from workflow data; Dynamics 365, Exchange Online and OData/CMIS REST interfaces are named. Webhooks, a named e-signature integration and a public API reference with a sandbox are missing from the captured pages, so workflows are strong but not yet a platform. 5 7 8
The Records Manager
Rule-based approvals without development effort, escalation management, dual control, substitution workflows, ad-hoc adjustment at runtime, and a Fiori invoice cockpit showing first-pass rate and throughput time are genuinely documented. Native S/4HANA integration without middleware plus connectors for SAP, Dynamics 365 and Exchange Online with OData and CMIS REST interfaces stand behind it; on DATEV handover, webhooks, and an API reference with rate limits we found no public information. 5 7 8
The IT Integrator
Workflows are the strong suit: rule-based approvals needing no development, escalation management and multi-level dual control, ad-hoc and substitution workflows, mobile approval via Fiori, and an invoice cockpit reporting first-pass rate and throughput time. The SAP scope is genuinely stated — FI-AP and MM, no middleware, SAP-certified CMIS and ArchiveLink — with connectors named for Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Exchange Online and REST via OData and CMIS; I found no public information on webhooks, a DATEV connector, or a public API reference with rate limits and a sandbox. 5 7 8 1
The Mittelstand Owner
Rule-based approvals with no development effort, escalation management, four-eyes principle, substitution workflows and mobile approval via Fiori apps are documented, the invoice workflow hands over natively to SAP FI-AP/MM, and the invoice cockpit reports first-pass rate and throughput time. We found no public information on a DATEV connector, webhooks, or a public API reference with a sandbox. 7 8 5
The Data Protection Officer
Rule-based approvals needing no development effort, runtime-adjustable and ad-hoc workflows, a substitution workflow for absences, escalation management and mobile approvals via Fiori are documented, with workflow reporting and an invoice cockpit showing first-pass rate and throughput time; connectors exist for SAP, Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Exchange Online alongside OData and CMIS interfaces. I found no public information on webhooks or events, a DATEV handover, or a public API reference with rate limits, which keeps this below the platform level. 5 7 8
The Skeptic
Rule-based approvals requiring no development effort, dynamically adjustable and ad-hoc workflows, substitution and escalation management and mobile approval through Fiori are documented, with an invoice cockpit reporting first-pass rate and throughput time. The SAP handover is genuinely scoped rather than merely 'seamless' — FI-AP and MM, certified for current SAP versions, no middleware — alongside Dynamics 365 and Exchange Online connectors and OData/CMIS interfaces; the gaps are DATEV, webhooks or events, and e-signature, which appears only inside the contract module's description of signature processes. 5 6 7 8
Search, retrieval & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Finding documents again and taking them with you: full-text and metadata search, saved searches and mobile access, and whether documents, metadata, versions and audit trail can be exported in documented formats when the contract ends.
0 — Folder browsing only; no export beyond downloading single files.
3 — Full-text search exists, but no metadata filters, and bulk export is undocumented or only on request.
5 — Full-text and metadata search with filters and saved searches, mobile or web access, and bulk export of documents with their metadata (for example CSV or XML) documented.
8 — Search across versions and attachments with permissions respected, export of documents in original format with metadata, versions and audit trail in a documented structure, and an import path from other DMS or file shares named.
10 — The exit is designed in: a documented complete export with schema, export available self-service at any time, the post-termination retrieval window and data deletion stated, and archives stored in open formats so a successor system can take them over intact.
The GoBD Auditor
Full-text search with AI indexing, business metadata added by the indexing module and archive retrieval from any location are documented. We found no public information on saved searches, and — decisive for me — nothing on bulk export of documents with their metadata, versions or audit trail; the only documented movement of data is the way in, via SAP TOA tables. 5 6
The Records Manager
AI-supported indexing with full-text search is documented, and a SING module adds business metadata so archived SAP documents are searchable from the easy client without SAP access — retrieval itself is covered. The exit is not: we found no public information on saved searches or filters, on bulk export of documents with their metadata and versions, or on a documented export structure, post-termination retrieval window and deletion; only migration into the archive is described. 5 6
The IT Integrator
Full-text search over AI-indexed documents, business metadata through the indexing module, and retrieval of SAP and non-SAP documents from inside SAP are documented, and reading legacy SAP archives for migration is described. I found no public information on saved searches, bulk export of documents with metadata and versions, or a post-termination retrieval window — the exit side of the story simply is not told on these pages. 5 6
The Mittelstand Owner
Full-text search with AI-powered indexing and added business metadata, access from anywhere including without the SAP client, and a migration path reading SAP TOA tables from a legacy archive are documented. We found no public information on filters and saved searches, or on any bulk export of documents with their metadata when a contract ends. 5 6 8
The Data Protection Officer
AI-powered indexing and full-text search reach both SAP and non-SAP documents, the indexing module adds business metadata so stored originals become findable without SAP access, and a migration path reads legacy archives read-only with a log. I found no public information on metadata filters and saved searches, and — decisive for me as data protection officer — no public information on any export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail in a documented structure when a customer leaves. 5 6 8
The Skeptic
Full-text search with added business metadata and retrieval of SAP and non-SAP documents from within SAP are documented, and there is even a described import path from legacy archives via the SAP TOA tables with an auditor-relevant migration log. The exit side is silent: we found no public information on bulk export of documents with metadata, versions or audit trail, on saved searches, or on any post-termination retrieval window — the migration story runs in one direction only. 5 6
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity and its owner are, where documents and their metadata are stored and processed in the cloud edition, and who the subprocessors are — including any AI provider that reads document content. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where documents are stored, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — An EU entity contracts, but the cloud edition runs on a non-EU-controlled hyperscaler without a stated safeguard, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU contracting entity and EU data centres stated for the cloud edition, with a DPA, but significant parts of the chain (hosting, AI processing, support) are non-EU-controlled without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU entity, documents and metadata stored in named EU data centres, subprocessor list with locations published, AI processing location disclosed, an on-premises or private-cloud option offered, and certifications (ISO 27001, BSI C5) published.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity, every processing location and subprocessor European, customer-controlled keys or on-premises operation available, and certifications with their scope published.
The GoBD Auditor
The captured pages state the cloud runs primarily in Germany with Switzerland or the USA as options, and on-premises or private-cloud operation is offered. The contracting entity's jurisdiction is not confirmed on the captured pages, and we found no public information on subprocessors, on where AI processing of document content runs, or on certifications; with the USA option described without a safeguard, this stays near the bottom. 6 8
The Records Manager
The captured pages state the cloud runs primarily in Germany with Switzerland and the USA as options, in a 24/7 data centre with backup, and an on-premises or private-cloud edition exists — real mitigations. But the contracting entity's jurisdiction is not confirmed on the vendor's captured pages, and we found no public information on ownership, on a subprocessor list with locations, or on where AI processing of document content runs. 6 8
The IT Integrator
The cloud edition is stated to run primarily in Germany, on-premises and private-cloud editions are offered, and the vendor presents itself as a German company with a German address; Switzerland or the USA are named as optional regions with no safeguard stated. I found no public information on the subprocessor chain, on where AI processing of document content runs, on published certifications, or on the ownership behind the contracting entity. 4 6 8
The Mittelstand Owner
The legal notice carries a German address in Essen and the cloud edition is stated as primarily located in Germany, though the USA is offered as an optional region. We found no public information on ownership, on the contracting entity as confirmed on the vendor's own pages, on the subprocessor list, or on where AI processing of document content runs. 4 6 2
The Data Protection Officer
The cloud edition is stated to run primarily in Germany with Switzerland or the USA as options, and on-premises or private-cloud operation is offered. The captured pages give no confirmation of the contracting entity's jurisdiction, and I found no public information on the subprocessor list, a data processing agreement, certifications, or which AI provider reads document content and where — the only processor disclosures I found concern the vendor's own website analytics, such as Google Analytics and session recordings retained for 30 days. 2 5 6
The Skeptic
The captured pages state the cloud solution runs primarily in Germany with Switzerland or the USA as options, and on-premises and private-cloud operation are offered — but we found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction, its ownership, a subprocessor list, or where any AI processing of document content takes place. An optional USA region without a stated safeguard, and no published ISO 27001 or BSI C5 certificate in what we captured, leave the European story unproven. 6 8
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the cost of a given number of users, storage and modules — including cloud versus on-premises licensing, maintenance, implementation partner fees and price increases — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every quote comes from sales or a partner.
3 — A "from" price or a single edition priced, but modules, storage, maintenance and partner implementation are unstated — the real cost is unknowable.
5 — Editions priced per user or per month, but at least one commonly needed cost (storage, archiving or workflow module, maintenance percentage, onboarding) is missing or "on request".
8 — Every edition and module priced publicly, storage limits and overage stated, on-premises licence and maintenance terms given, and contract term and notice period published.
10 — Complete cost computability: a configurator or price list covering users, modules, storage and deployment model, partner implementation priced or bounded, and price-increase terms on a public page.
The GoBD Auditor
We found no public prices on any captured page — not a from-price, not an edition structure, not a storage limit — and no statement on maintenance or partner implementation. The only route offered to a cost figure is an individual live demo, so a buyer can compute nothing in advance. 1 1
The Records Manager
We found no public information on prices for any edition, module, user count, storage tier, maintenance or on-premises licensing anywhere on the captured pages. What the pages do offer is an individual live demo and a sales phone number, which is where the quote conversation starts rather than where it can be checked. 4 1
The IT Integrator
I found no public information on prices — no edition, module, storage, maintenance or onboarding figure appears on any captured page — and the route offered is an individual live demo. A buyer cannot compute any part of the cost from public pages alone. 1 1
The Mittelstand Owner
The captured pages contain no prices at all — no edition, per-user, storage, module or maintenance figure — and the only path offered is an individual live demo, with 50+ partners suggesting quotes come through the channel. As a buyer I cannot compute any part of the cost before the partner visit. 1 4 1
The Data Protection Officer
I found no public prices in the captured pages — no edition, per-user, storage or maintenance figures — and the only commercial step offered is an individual live demo, with a partner network of over fifty named. A buyer therefore cannot compute any part of the cost without going through sales or a partner. 1 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about EASY Archive
Is EASY Archive European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies EASY Archive as EU-Made.
Where does EASY Archive store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does EASY Archive have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to EASY Archive?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates AMAGNO (3/5), Doxis (3/5) and enaio (2.5/5) highest among the other 14 Document Management (DMS) products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is AMAGNO (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: EASY Archive alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 17 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 9 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 legal fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 pricing fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage easy-software.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy easy-software.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice easy-software.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap easy-software.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap easy-software.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap easy-software.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap easy-software.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap easy-software.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →